[1] When the residential real estate market is a rising market, most people – perhaps with the exception of first time buyers, are happy homeowners and investors. When the market turns and drops, it is not for the faint of heart. The facts of this case tragically demonstrate how one family, presumably desperate for their dream home, became embroiled in a bidding war and overextended their ability to finance the purchase price of that dream home.

[17] In my view, the Appeals Officer reasonably found that some obligations listed in subsection 125(1) cannot apply where the employer has no control over the work place. For example, the Appeals Officer recognized that if the employer does not own the buildings nor has a right to alter them, an employer cannot ensure that those buildings meet prescribed standards, as required under paragraph (a). Further, as the respondent argued, if the work place was not under the employer’s control, an employer could not install guard rails and fences, as required under paragraph (b). Conversely, even if the employer did not control the work place, the Appeals Officer recognized that an employer could ensure the safety of the equipment being used by its employees, as required under paragraph (t), so long as it controlled the employees’ activity.

[26] As explained above, the reviewing judge always has the discretion, per s. 525(3), to consider “unreasonable delay” on the part of the Crown or the accused, but unreasonable delay is not the sole consideration at the first stage of the analysis, or the sole justification for a review of the basis of the accused’s detention. In a case where the prosecutor has been responsible for “unreasonable delay”, the judge may conclude, depending on the nature and reasons for the delay in conjunction with all of the other factors in s. 515(10), that continued detention is not justified and the accused should be released. In a case where the accused has been responsible for “unreasonable delay”, the judge may decide, depending on the length and reasons for the delay, that the only reason the accused’s detention exceeded the prescribed time frame without a trial is because of the accused’s delay. This may lead to a determination that the initial basis for detaining the accused has not been overcome or overtaken. The reviewing judge should also take into account whether any concern about delay can be ameliorated by directions concerning the trial, as contemplated in s. 525(9).